ChuckWest

Only you can take the decision what you want to believe. I am not here to force you to accept my position. I am just here to provide you with the data I have aquired and share with you the rational induction of these data so you can decide on your own what you want to believe. If you think I'm full of it then fine, that is your right. I won't lose any sleep over that. Of course I come here also in the hopes that I will find an argument that will make me rethink my position but so far my convictions are intact. There is nothing "convenient" about the truth except that it always seems to make more sense and sounds more believable. You must go about your life with blinders and earplugs if you can't see how the governments are lying through their teeth all the time for power and money. Money, lots and lots of it. If they said the truth about the batteries they would lose the far more lucrative fake atomic cluster hoaxes they use to justify genocide and create the kind of fear that induces people to the false belief that resistance is futile and they have the power to destroy the world. Deny the fraudulent practices in certain scientific fields if you feel you must and deny that millions will conspire to do unto others as they would loathe others do unto them if you must but don't expect everybody to follow suit just because you find these beliefs convenient. Why do you rule out the possibility that they are using huge Sterling engines to recharge the batteries or the more probable secret underwater recharging outposts linked to surface power grids. You know, bleeding the surface power grid excesses directly into these fake nuclear powered subs. See how little imagination one has when he wants to believe a pack of lies agreed upon. Your brain refuses to acknowledge the many ways things can be done secretly.

Ok, let me see, you are denying that energy efficiency produces surplus energy? Explain how that works in your topsy-turvy world. Also while you are at it explain where they are bleeding these energy surpluses. If you deny the surplus please explain why and don't say it's because they need so-called nuclear reactors. This may come as a surprise to you but all of Europe's power grids are interconnected. The fake reactors in France could potentially be bleeding the energy surplusses of that whole continent. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I don't know. How many ways can Helium 4 be produced? Totally possible.

I don't agree with the concept of commercially-viable nuclear energy production because I don't believe one can create energy where there is none to create. I understand that energy efficiency does not translate into higher demand and I know for a fact that the big utilities must hide (read "sink") the massive energy surplusses produced by conventional means like hydro and coal for instance. I also understand that if these energy surplusses generated by the big utils become known to the public at large these big utils will lose their justifications for charging outrageously high rates for energy. The surpluses are directed invisibly to these fake reactors and "bled" into the cores. The energy flowing in is represented inversly by the instruments programmed by crews at reactor boot-up time. How else can we explain that a so-called nuclear reactor blacks out along with it's conventional counterparts? People pay up to 6 billion dollars per reactor and the damn thing can't light a 10watt bulb during a blackout. I have heard the explanation that the massive blackout that includes the reactors is to be blamed on the distribution grid but I counter that argument by asking why any fool would design a trans-national highway that cloggs up from one coast to the other every time two cars collide on a country back road. The idea is ludicrous. Anyways, can someone tell me where the big utils are bleeding their massive excess energy if not in those big fake reactor buildings?? Frankly I could care less how you describe my responses. The so-called nuclear navy is either powered by super-high efficiency batteries or battery/Sterling engine hybrids. Do you know what a Sterling engine is? One thing it is not is noisy and smelly.

Actually, this thread is the first time I have heard that there was a major discrepancy in the altitude reported in the official record of the Hiroshima bombings. The vast majority of articles I have read from diffent sources indicate anywhere between 1800 feet and 2000 feet. Nothing over that. I suspect the hoaxsters are intentionally injecting the disinfo to confuse the issue now that people are getting wise to their hoax. Anyways, the higher up they place the bomb the more the mushroom cloud story falls apart, the more they bring it down the worst the absence of a crater becomes. Wherever they decide to park that hoax they are in trouble as far as I can see. As far as faked radiation reading are concerned you can't deny that a lot of fraud exists in science and scientific claims. Most of the time there is little profit in truth and billions in lies. Does your work involve going into the core, removing the parts and examining them? I did not think so. As far as I see you are basing your assumptions on the instruments that report what you expect should be happening in the core. My contention is that the core is full of baking-oven type elements that "sink" the excess energy coming in from the grid running on conventional sources outside the building. The water circulates and cools these huge elements while the instruments running on secret proprietary software report what the technician expects to see. That is what I think. I think your statements only prove what you do for a living, not what is really going on inside the core of those so-called nuclear reactors. Logic and inductive reasoning, you know, the stuff you apply to the study of these technologies, say that only a pack of fools would design a super bomb only to deploy it at such a high altitude that the resulting damage looks like the burning of leaves in autumn. The reason the altitudes are being played with at present is a direct result of the growing awareness of the hoax in the public mind and a last-ditch effort on the part of the hoaxsters to discredit the debunks with conflicting data. It's an old ploy. The vast majority of reports have the bomb pegged at near 2000 feet and I can't imagine why they would lie about that and expect to retain credibility. 2000 feet is already pretty high when justifying the expense and results expected. That so-called atom bomb made less damage than the raid over Tokyo several months earlier. Aside the cost of building the B-29, the cost for firebombing Tokyo and destroying 4 times as much territory was just under one million dollars. Why would anyone build a billion dollar bomb to accomplish what several B-29 could accomplish for less than one million dollars? Nobody, because that is exactly how they destroyed Hiroshima, the same way they destroyed a huge chunk of Tokyo. I know about the rules of evidence in courtrooms. The rules of evidence are not the same for a civil proceeding as they are for a criminal proceeding. The civil proceeding will admit lots of circumstantial evidence that the criminal proceeding will not allow. So, that analogy is defective. Who says I need a doctor's degree in physics to understand the basic and numerous flaws in the official records as they apply to the nuclear hoax clusters? Your ignorance has made you arrogant and pompous. So-called nuclear reactors are big buildings and they are real enough, I have worked building them at the engineering level in structural development. That said we can agree that the building gives no substance to the things going on inside so we won't worry about that. Many many people are salaried to work in these buildings and monitor the security, supply and maintenance. Again nothing of a big deal there, everything at this level is expected to look normal and no special effects have come into play yet. The game begins when we enter the control room. What is a control room anyways? It is a representation of variables said to be operating to achieve the potential predicted in the mathematical models. The truth is that the control panel is an advanced simulator running on highly specific top secret application software developed secretly a long time ago and refined many times since. So the unsuspecting employees work all day monitoring variables fed to them by sophisticated digital processors geared to simulate a nuclear reactor core and it's cooling elements. The so-called reactor has a network-type grid to distribute the energy it is said to produce to it's customers. The trick is that instead of distributing electricity it is "consuming" electricity tapped off the conventional source along it's distribution grid where they intersect. The power thus dervied is fed to the brushes (electrical brush electrodes on the shaft of a rotating generator/motor). You see the trick is that a generator can be a motor if the current is coming in instead of out. So, the turbines pushing the water around to give the employees that rumble feeling of might and energy are driven by electricity arriving from conventional sources. That is why a so-called nuclear power plant blacks out when the conventional sources go on the blink. Some will say that it is the "grid" that is designed that way but everyone knows it would be stupid to design an inter-state highway complex that jams up completely because two cars collided on a country road, it makes no sense. You see, we have people here that sweat themselves to death trying to pull themselves out of the debt burdon created by the arrival of a so-called nuclear generating plant in their district only to discover it can't even light up a common lightbulb when the conventional sources blink out. I mean that has to be the most damning evidence that the industry is bogus. The industry is compartmentalized and Joe knows nothing of what Al is doing and so on while the whole mess of illusions is shrouded in national secrecy protocols. The hoaxster's paradise. The materials delivered and picked up are said to be radio-active so nobody checks further than their nose for fear of radiation poisoning which is another convenient fallacy to shroud the racket. Lots of big money in so-called nuclear waste management and billions more for supply of fake fissionable uranium. More like they are moving simple lead around. The alchemist's age old dream of converting lead to gold. I can't say for sure what is making the people said to be poisoned with radiation sick. I think time will show that it was those that had access to the bloodstreams of those people that ay have been the unsuspecting patsies to those that provided them with tainted vials to make the mark sick. [Racist rant removed] The atom bomb hoax also reinforces the nuclear hoax because they say you can build one hoax with the process of the other hoax so, more intimacy for the hoaxsters. And we all know how hard it is to break these illusions once they have been solidly achored down into the public psyche. Hollywood has also played a MAJOR role in promoting these hoaxes and again it is no surprise that the same tribe that pulled the wool over the eyes of humanity would be pulling the levers in hollywood. To give the commercially-viable nuclear energy hoax a great measure of credibility. It's pretty elementary I would think. Great rebuttal of my debunk. You must be a genuis. There, now you have an excuse no to participate deeper and expose your total ignorance of the subject matter review. No I'm not. Maybe you should go back and read the thread again before creating the illusion that this has not been discussed already. That is a good motive for supporting a pack of lies agreed upon. I don't blame him for being reluctant about a truth that could make him the laughing stock of his entourage. People might point at him and say what kind of genuis are you if you could not understand simple elementary logic. He has a direct interest in crushing the truth about those bogus sciences. That is a good motive for supporting a pack of lies agreed upon. I don't blame him for being reluctant about a truth that could make him the laughing stock of his entourage. People might point at him and say what kind of genuis are you if you could not understand simple elementary logic. He has a direct interest in crushing the truth about those bogus sciences. I am not saying they would intentionally distort the truth just that they might find it easier to go along with the lies even when confronted by a damning evidence. Who in their right mind would want to become the laughing stock or lose their gainful employment? Not many people I estimate.

No, that is not true. The fact that it cannot be disproven or proven conclusively only makes it a hoaxster's paradise. Logic and reason are the tools to be used to understand the truth or fallacy of any given claim. I do not believe the atom bomb is a hoax because my debunk cannot be disproven but because the official story of it's existance is full of contradiction and the kind of messes of logic one would normally associate with a fraud or deception. The frequency of the contradictions and omissions in the official story of the atom bomb are such that I can hardly imagine why so many people come to it's defence. Like I said before, people find it easier to go along with a set of lies agreed upon rather than face the truth that they have been lied to shamelessly for so long. A lot of people have great interest in the continuation of those fallacies. Just look at the contradictions in the official story and figure out the rest yourself. Ask yourself, would there be so many contradictions if the story were true. You forgot the sarcasm tags. Flamebait. Point? Irrelevant Call it whatever you like. Tibbets is central to the issue of a so-called atom bomb being dropped on the city of Hiroshima in August, 1945. My debunk says that he lied so there is no deception there. It's not my fault if the discussion has taken us away from that lie on Tibbets part once in a while during the course of this thread. People expressed resentment towards him because they believe he roasted hundreds of thousands of people. My contention is that he was neither a fine serviceman nor a gentleman for having covered up the truth about the hundreds of B-29s that firebombed that city on that day. The contempt and resentment directed at him was completely justified if not motivated by the truth. End of that story I estimate.

First I would like to point out that you are answering a reply I made to iNow at the end of your post where you keep repeating WHAT? over and over. I pressed the quote button on iNow's post not yours. How it ended up in your bin is a mystery to me. So, I will answer the questions relevant to your post only. I'm sure I don't understand your point or your analogy. Can I ask you to reformulate that statement so I can respond adequately? Glad you decided to stay honest instead. I don't ascribe to the politics of Ayn Rand. I never denied that there should have been a crater nor have I denied the absence of shockwave evidence nor have I denied the absence of the historical seismograms so I really don't know what you are talking about. Every serious scientist understands that sometimes the best theories don't pan out so well when put into application. Especially those that postulate the creation of energy where there is none. Most scientists of Einstein's time were laughing at his ideas about unleashing massive energy from a small mass of physical rock. The formulations indicated that a massive release of energy would result from a chain reaction that would split all the atoms in a mass of uranium but the technique for producing the chain reaction was also the reason I believe the mass was consumed by the conventional explosion before the chain reaction could achieve optimal velocity. I am not saying that is the reason the bomb fizzed out just saying that it would appear to be a reason why it works on paper but failed in practice. Could be that the scientific claim itself was doctored and false to start with, I don't know. What I do know is that the evidence I have examined thus far indicates that the atom bomb is a bogus claim from top to bottom. Do you deny that there is a lot of fraud in the scientific community and it's claims? Do you refute the possiblity that the money involved was so tempting that they would fake the bomb rather than admitting they could never do it? So they say, but is it true? Do you always believe anything the scientific community claims? I know I don't unless the facts add up. With the atom bomb the facts don't add up and it's the same story with commercially-viable nuclear energy. What happened to the shockwave? Does that not propagte too? A mushroom cloud need a thermally and dynamically stable air mass above it or it's growth is voided. The kind of thermodynamic disturbances implied by the mathematical models presented would absolutely void the presence of a mushroom cloud. Besides, mushroom clouds do not grow out of radial high altitude detonations. A physical impossiblity. Wikipedia also agrees with this fact of high altitude explosions. My english is fine. A manitude dyslexic is any person that does not grasp the magnitude of any given thing. Thus, a person that reads about a plane violently rocked by an explosion 28,000 feet beneath it and does not understand that this same blast will create a crater at 2000 feet is a manitude dyslexic or a shill fronting from the atomic hoaxsters. Is this an attempt at humour or are you exposing your hatred and contempt for those that expose facts you should have known on your own a long time ago? If you wish to insult me or show contempt you will talk to yourself in the future, I will not respond. Are you a fraud-in-science denier? Electromagnetism is not a hoax. You show your contempt when you insinuate I would deny the existance of electromegnetism. For an atom bomb to work there are far more elements at work than just electromagnetism and you know it so stop playing stupid with me and get back on track. You are exhausting my patience with your circular logic. I guess you never worked with plaster or plastics. My guess is you also believe everything you read as long as it has some form of "official" stamp on it. Who said I wanted a Nobel Prize. Vanity and prestige are not my motivations for exposing the atomic hoax clusters. Truth in the record is my prime motive. Fake atom bombs and fake commercially viable nuclear energy are presently being used as justification in taking lives massively in Iran as it was in Iraq so saving lives with the truth is another big motivator for me. Yes they do and all are seeded from the ground. Don't be sorry, just answer the question. Why are plants growing everywhere one week after a blast said to void plant growth for 70 years? Will you evade that question to with lame burden of proof excuses? Please explain. Do you mean that you are having someone photoshop a few to use in this thread or are you digging up TNT seismograms to pass of as so-called atomic seismograms? They did not use M-69 aimable cluster firebomblets in Dresden and the aerial views of Hiroshima post-bombing look more like a huge autumn leaf burning than the consequence of an earth shattering atomic explosion. The streets are clear of debris, the trees are thin, charred and still standing upright. You call that a shockwave. How is your man doing on those historical seismograms, is the ink dry yet? Because the authorities said people died from exposure to it. Are you making this up as you go along? You are building one fallacy on top of another and you wish for me to take you seriously. Is logic your first language? The new world order is actually a very old world order run by the same tribal affiliates generation after generation. The new world order hoax was designed specifically to hide that fact. Who said the Japanese faked those pictures? Sure they were "in" on it at the highest levels. They have conspired with other nations to kill their own many times in the past. I see you are good at it. Got me rolling on the floor laughing more than once. Methinks you don't know what the expression fraud-in-science means. Now you are being silly and not living up to your stature as a good stand up comedian. Have you ever thought for one instant that, had they actually built the bomb, that they would have been so frightened by it's potential that they would have buried it fast and killed all those in the know about it and bought off the silence of the others? What makes you think those elites would not have seen this as a great threat to their global hedgemony? Nobody knows the exact figures. A lot I presume. You are being silly again. Cure it and get on with your life. Are you a big meat eater suffering the ravages of excessive preuric acid ingestion?

Is that what you are saying happened? That they faked the altitude and the so-called atomic blast was a ground detonation? The official story of the atom bomb is no defense. It is a fable riddled with contradictions and omissions and outright lies. My only burdon is providing the reader with the data I have examined and the conclusions this has led me to so they may do their own research and reach their own conclusions. How do you know what is really going on in the core of a so-called nuclear reactor, have you taken one apart and examined the pieces on your kitchen table. If you have not themn you are merely speculating. That is a lie. I get the distinct feeling you are setting me up for banishment. I have responded adequately to all questions whether they satify your inability to grasp elementary logic or not. The only reason you refuse to prove me wrong is because you are hiding behind your burdon of proof fallacy. Where is your evidence that it would not make a crater? http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/enw77b1.html What kind of idiots would spend billions designing a bomb they will blow up so high in the sky nobody will notice? I think your assumption that the so-called atom bomb was detonated at 4 times the height reported for decades is rediculous. Proof that the web is also full of disinfo. They did not build their so-called atom bomb just to give the Enola Gay a few jolts you know. I made many other points. That you choose to ignore them or consider them trivial is your problem not mine. Are you going to prove me wrong or rant about all day? What have you contributed to this thread besides gratuitous comments and trivial marginalizations. You have done nothing to defend that pack of lies they call an official story of the so-called atom bomb. I don't owe you nothing. If you are not satified with my explanations that is fine and you can move on and let some other genuis pick up the slack.

That is all that is required to make my point. I did and gave you a link. You are playing the parrot again. Are you that desperate? I am not Ayn Rand's mother. No guesswork. Fact 1= Enola Gay at 30,000 feet, Fact 2= so-called atom bomb detonated at 1826 feet above the ground, Fact 3= B-29 rocked violently twice, Fact 4= trees still standing and streets clear and underground sewers barely damaged and seismograms missing, Fact 5=no crater. Deny that. I find it unusual that someone pretending to know so much about physics can't grasp elementary logic. All you do is play the selectively curious card and turn circles around that hoping the reader will interpret that as scientific wisdom. Where are your mathematical formulations, Einstein? In a radial airborne detonation the shockwaves go in all directions. Except of course when you describe them. I don't write for the benefit of the magnitude dyslexics that are dead set against assimilating elementary logic. Get a tutor. I recognize no such burdon. I expose the facts as I see them and that is the limit of my so-called burdon. So now you claim atom bombs are real because computers are real. That is amusing. How do you come to that conclusion? I never denied the existance of computers. I sometimes hear other say that public schools can't be all that bad, after all, they put a man on the moon with that type of instruction, lol. Next you will claim that dinosaurs existed because they found bones. I also have the option of ignoring spam like that. You still have not provided evidence that a mushroom cloud grows out of an airborne radial explosion and you have no explanation for plant growth everywhere in Hirosdhima after the bombings and you don't care to know where the historic seismograms went and you provided no evidence to explain the absence of a shockwave in Hiroshima and you neglected to give an explanation why the city started rebuilding the very next day in spite of the massive radiation that should have been present. You are also totally oblivious to the fact that Tibbets was a Hollywood insider and you probably deny they had the means to show a fake mushroom cloud in the post bombing pictures of Hiroshima and you accuse ME of distracting, lol. Are you a stand up comedian besides plying forums for atom bomb hoaxsters? Lying has also been a SUCCESSFUL science over the years. Very profitable science. I deny it's very existance and believe they will never build one. Why else would they have to fake it? Yes, that's right. Is that a banning offence at atombombhoaxmaintenance.com? Your question shows without doubt that you don't know the first thing about the conditions required for the growth of a mushroom cloud. You sound delirious. Are you ok?

It does demonstrate that the Americans had the means at their disposal to irradiate the survivors of the incendiary raid with x-rays they could later describe as the effects of so-called atomic bomb radioactive fallout. Doesn't get simpler then that. The quote indicates the means to simulate atomic radioactive fallout with x-ray bombardment. That is not misdirection. As I was saying, you appear to be on a fishing expedition. You are flogging a dead horse when you claim misdirection. Believe whatever you like and I won't lose a moment's sleep over that. I guess so. The atom bomb hoax is rife with scientific method and formula yet it is a hoax. No I did not. I showed a graphic and explained in simple terms why the story is bogus. That is because my so-called calculations are a figment of your imagination. Where are your calculations to prove that a blast over a city at 2000 feet that rocks a B-29 violently at 30,000 feet will not crush everything below it and leave a massive crater? I have not seen your so-called evidence yet. Take another look and you will see there is an altitude scale and representative values. Probably not the mind-boggling physics math you are expecting but it is very clear in it's simplicity. Why should I bog myself down with complex math when a simple elementary formula is good enough to make my point? Where's your simple model to prove the contrary? You ask a lot but provide very little. Why don't you show us how to muddle an issue with convoluted formulas a lay person won't understand? You are starting to sound like a parrot by repeating yourself and showing us that you can not assimilate elementary logic without bogging yourself down in myrad formulas and scientific wishwash. You call what your rants a scientific method, lol? That's rich. Like I said, some people will believe a pack of lies and defend them with confident ardor instead of facing the fact that they have been lied to massively about the atom bomb. Do you have the slightest idea how many people have a vested interest in maintaining that hoax? Do you have any idea what is at stake for those people if the truth becomes widely accepted? The ones you are desperately trying to bury under a pile of semantic hogwash. Not true. Not true. Is that also what you said after reading the first paragraph of the official atom bomb story? Maybe you should read MORE instead. Thanks for not giving me a reason to doubt my debunk.

Quick, hide the link before somebody gets an education by accident. You sound just like those body snatcher aliens in the hollywood movie screaming because they have detected someone not put to sleep by them. Are you a thread cop, lol? I answered that spamming you called a question. I told you that the information could have been faked. Very easily in fact. Do you take everything the government says as gospel truth? I hope not for your sake. I am calm. You are very silly asking someone you just described as a crackpot to answer your question. You shoved this thread in the crackpot section of the forum so why are you still interested in what I have to say? What do you expect? You want me to kiss your *** for calling me and my work crackpot? You have high expectations. What's your excuse for showing interest in a so-called crackpot thread? Don't you have better things to do?

Incendiary bombs only irradiate heat and fire, nothing else. I never said there was radioactivity in Hiroshima. Where is the evidence that Hiroshima was radioactive? All the evidence says otherwise. I ask you, how easy is it to lie about radio isotopes? Actually, if you were paying attention you would have noted who threw the first stone. The moderator that jacked this thread to it's present location for no good reason did so qualifying it as a crackpot thread. In other words the moderator should moderate himself or expect the elevator be sent back up to her/him. The fact is that the Americans were irradiating people with x-rays and documenting the subsequent illness as so-called atom bomb fallout illness. What part of that don't you get? The quote indicates that the Americans had the equipment and the means at their disposal to irradiate people with x-rays and describe their illness as radioactivity-induced. People also got sick and died from exposure to the direct effects of a raging firestorm and exposure to the oil-laden black rain that fell everywhere following that massive raid. Obviously you are suffering from magnitude dyslexia. You are the one saying I need physics math to prove the obvious. If a blast can rock a b-29 violently at 30,000 feet above it what do you think will be the effect felt by those directly below it? I wish you would stop being silly about that. It can also be demonstrated quite clealy with the elementary math I provided in my graphic. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that a detonation at 2000 feet from the ground that can rock a B-29 violently twice at 30,000 feet has to be uttery devastating and leave a massive crater directly under it. How hard can that be to fathom I ask? Do you need to see the simple graphic again? Good for you. For some people there will never be enough evidence to prove they have been lied to massively. Especially to those that should have known better and not fallen for those shameless lies put forth by the atom bomb hoaxsters. Why do you ask if you have already made up your mind that I don't have enough education to address the issue adequately. A person must be seriously deluded to think that one needs a masters in physics to see the multitudes of contradictions, ommissions and outright lies in the atom bomb stories. No you are not, you are fishing for something to poke redicule and contempt at. A serious resercher would have already grasped the most elementary points of my debunks. Assimilate those and we might be able to move on to some tougher stuff. And that's not flamebait? Don't the site rules work both ways around here? Be civil and I will address your posts.

You have a lot of nerve calling this a science forum when you can't address the most elementary issues in physics. This is more like a hoax maintenance website run by those that find ignorance blissful. You can shove you isotopes where the sun don't shine. My debunk is not pseudoscience, the official story of the atom bomb is.

No. Don't need to in order to make my point that Hiroshima was burned down with incendiaries and not from a single blast from a so-called atom bomb. Could it be that you are suffering from the selective curiosity syndrome? I came to this forum to present these facts to educated people and all I see are evasive tactics and focus on irrelevancy. Why is that? The experts said nothing would grow in Hiroshima for 70 years and that was not true. The media and the academic literature speak of a horrible blast but the evidence provided by these same sources prove otherwise. Everyone knows that Hiroshima was/is located in a highly volcanic zone yet nobody cares if the seismograms went missing. Most people have seen airborne detonations at fireworks displays and none saw a mushroom cloud (proportionally speaking of course) yet everyone buys the mushroom cloud at Hiroshima story. Maybe I should be seeking answers on a cooking website, lol.

From: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:brCkYWwD9N0J:www.icjonline.com/eqtips/IITK-BMTPC-EQTip03.pdf+%22hiroshima+earthquakes%22&hl=en "The energy released by a M6.3 earthquake is equivalent to that released by the 1945 Atom Bomb dropped on Hiroshima!!" That so-called radiation sickness can be simulated with x-rays, what else? Did you know that jellied petrol incediaries can cause cancers and even kill those exposed to it and the black rain it produces when vaporized in massive firestorms? Worked for me. I am not resposible for maintaining that site but I did export the content to THIS webpage. You can read it there if you like. Not at all. I just find it so insignificant compared to the other evidence presented thus far. I just think your insistance on this point has more to do with desperation than any desire on your part you get to the truth. Isotope readings are the easiest thing to fake. Especially when billions of dollars are at stake. This may not be the answer you were looking for but it will have to do. How about you tell me where the missing seismograms went to and why there are no signs of a shockwave at Hiroshima.

From: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:brCkYWwD9N0J:www.icjonline.com/eqtips/IITK-BMTPC-EQTip03.pdf+%22hiroshima+earthquakes%22&hl=en "The energy released by a M6.3 earthquake is equivalent to that released by the 1945 Atom Bomb dropped on Hiroshima!!" That so-called radiation sickness can be simulated with x-rays, what else? Did you know that jellied petrol incediaries can cause cancers and even kill those exposed to it and the black rain it produces when vaporized in massive firestorms? Not Found The requested URL /~hipec/conference/001.pdf. was not found on this server. Worked for me. I am not resposible for maintaining that site but I did export the content to THIS webpage. You can read it there if you like.